Inglorious B*stards

humanji

I just read the desciption of one of Tarantino's next projects, Inglorious B*stards, which seems a little odd. It's a WW2 film about a group of military convicts who undertake a secret mission for the Allies. It's basically a remake of the film Quel maledetto treno blindato (who's apparent translation is "Inglorious B*stards). Some may notice the similarities to the Dirty Dozen so it's worth mentionind that they're all based on a novel written by someone who I can't remember (and I'm too lazy to google it!).

Anyway, I read one of the trivia points that says:

"When Tarantino wrote the screenplay, he wanted to have Mickey Rourke in the film to get Rourke back in the business again. But then Robert Rodriguez used him for Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003) and Sin City (2005) and Tarantino scrapped the idea."

Does anyone think he's getting a little cocky? He wanted to revive Rourke's carrer and when somebody beats him to it, he scraps Rourke altogether! It's like he's believing his own hype now and only wants to make movies that people will remember for a gimmick or something.

And from what I've read in various articles about this film (although it may have been lost in the translation), Tarantino seems to be claiming that it's an original idea that he's been working on since before Kill Bill (so we can expect another pretentious title card at the start telling us that this is actually his first film or something!). Maybe it's a mis-quote, and I'm reading it wrong, but I'm starting to loose all the respect I had for this guy.

Karl Hungus

jomanji wrote:

Tarantino seems to be claiming that it's an original idea that he's been working on since before Kill Bill

Quite frankly, that's nothing new. Reservoir Dogs is a remake of City On Fire that Tarantino managed to pass off as his own original idea. Kill Bill is just Lady Snowblood, with a bit of added copy&paste shots from other iconic films.

humanji

True, but he usually tries to hide it a little.

Dont be at yourself

No he doesn't. He's always very honest about paying homage to the movies, music, comics etc that he loves.

Anyway, the magic of a Tarantino flick isn't the story. It's the look, the dialogue, the soundtrack, and any other number of things that are distinctly Tarantino.

I dunno about getting cocky regarding being beaten to the punch to revive Rourke's career either. Tarantino and Rodriguez are long time friends and collaborators, and their movies tend to share a lot of cast members. That said, he did give a shot in the arm to plenty of down-on-their-luck actors, so he has something of a track record.

Muckmagnet

i've heard that about mickey rourke, i also heard eddie murohy has been cast also . he does have aknack of seeing something in has been actors and revivng careers

nadir

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

OfflerCrocGod

jomanji wrote:

Quel maledetto treno blindato (who's apparent translation is "Inglorious B*stards).

No it isn't it's more like "That Damned Armoured Train".

Dont be at yourself

nadir wrote:

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

Well isn't someone a little snobbish? I've watched plenty of good movies, thanks. But I'm not so elitist to say that virtually the entire output of one of this generation's finest film-makers "sucks".

Interesting that you single out 'Jackie Brown', his smallest success, as decent. How very indie of you.

Goodshape

Pulp Fiction was one of the best films of the 1990's imho. His other films are good, but Pulp Fiction is definitely great.

Nobody ever seems to mention that when they're talking about Tarrintino ripping people off -- what did Pulp Fiction rip-off/pay homage too?

humanji

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Anyway, the magic of a Tarantino flick isn't the story. It's the look, the dialogue, the soundtrack, and any other number of things that are distinctly Tarantino.

Very true.

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I dunno about getting cocky regarding being beaten to the punch to revive Rourke's career either. Tarantino and Rodriguez are long time friends and collaborators, and their movies tend to share a lot of cast members. That said, he did give a shot in the arm to plenty of down-on-their-luck actors, so he has something of a track record.

I know the two are close, but it's just the fact he wanted to cast sombody to revive their career, but when somebody else did it first, he dropped the actor altogether. It was like he was just wanted to be able to say "Hey, I'm the guy who revived Mickey Rourke's career! Ain't I great!" It seems a bit like he was just going for the kudos.

No it isn't it's more like "That Damned Armoured Train".

Sorry, I don't speak a word of Italian. I was reading it off a site. I think Inglorious B*startds is what the Italian film was called in English speaking cinemas (according to IMDB).

as for:

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

A little harsh isn't it? I'm not his biggest fan, but his movies are entertaining at worst. And Jackie Brown was, in my opinion, his worse film. I think the raw energy he injected into his early movies shows he has a hell of a lot of talent.

Necronomicon

Michael Madson is the only cast member confirmed according to imdb, but there have been strange names thrown around like Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy.

Goodshape

Necromomicon wrote:

Michael Madson is the only cast member confirmed according to imdb, but there have been strange names thrown around like Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy.

IMDb is not a good source for such info. Anyone can submit content to it.

PrettyPoison

nadir wrote:

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

I've seent ons of good films, thank you.
i know a great film when I see it, and I can tell you Jackie Brown was one of Tarantino's best. Don't be so vague. Sucks? Details please, why did you hate it? Was it too much for you?
Haven't seen it yet? Were you watching? Or were you staring at the screen?
I'm curious to see what your favourite films and directors are...

lodgepole

It's quite possible that Mickey Rourke's carreer revival has robbed him of some of his current anonymity and that he can bring less to the role given his last few films. Besides, there's not an awful lot wrong with being keen on getting some of your personal heros into roles you think would do them (and you) good.

Inglorious Bastards has been knocking around since just after Jackie Brown came out, or at least it feels that way.

nadir wrote:

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

I've seen pretty much all of the films that get thrown around when people criticise Tarantino about plagerism (certainly all of the main ones and a good number of the smaller ones). In every case Tarantino's take was better IMO. City on Fire, for example, is a painfully average film. Reservoir Dogs is infinitely better. Should it have had a credit saying "based on the motion picture City on Fire"? Probably. But it wouldn't have changed the quality of either film.

Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs are the two Tarantino films that hold up the best after repeated viewings. Although i'm looking forward to seeing how the two Kill Bills cut together.

nadir

nadir wrote:

Paying homage my ass.
Jackie Brown was decent at best, everything else sucks. Watch some good Films first and then try to convince me he's able to make one, cause I havn't seen it yet.

Pretty ridiculous statement considering the quality of Pulp Fiction.

I am by no means a Tarantino fan, I prefer some originality. I dont like his coked up overconfident interviews neither.
Tarrantino has some talent in that he's got some style, but as far as ideas go, he might as well be a pop musician. i would love to see him attempt to make an original film and then perhaps he could be judged on his own qualities. too many more rehashes and he will be like a footballer with a bad knee injury

PrettyPoison

''over confident interviews''???
Making films was his dream, and he fulfilled it. He's simply proud of his success, and there's nothing wrong with pride in yourself

Even though many claim he has no original ideas, he certainly makes Hollywood interesting. If Tarantino didn't exist in American Cinema, the world would be a boring place.i mean look at Pulp, the uproar it brought in 1994, it completely changed the film world

A great script is what makes his films so good and kudos to him for writing them. It sounds like it's been spoken and not written

Also people say he's a plagiarist, fair enough, but did you think that he's simply nostalgic for the era of film making he was brought up in?

P.S. To the starter of this thread,I think the author you're thinking of is Elmore Leonard

Karl Hungus

Quite frankly, I just don't want to get into another debate about Tarantino. I think everyone knows my stance on the man, and I think I've exorcized all my anger towards him before. There's no doubt he's an absolute plagiarist, just see here, in the influences section:

Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages."

As much as the "Great artists steal" part bothers me a hell of a lot (And how his fans hang on such words, and will no doubt take that part as gospel), I'm just not going to go into it. But at least that should shut up some people who claim he makes "Homages" when it is undoubtably pure plaigiarism.

So, with that out of the way, I think we can get back on topic for a bit here.

We're not going to see Inglorious Bastards any time soon. Currently, he's doing a film called Grindhouse with Robert Rodriguez. So it'll be some time after that he'll be doing Inglorious bastards. Although, he was supposed to film it straight after Kill Bill, so I wouldn't hold out much hope for it.

PrettyPoison

Karl Hungus wrote:

Quite frankly, I just don't want to get into another debate about Tarantino. I think everyone knows my stance on the man, and I think I've exorcized all my anger towards him before. There's no doubt he's an absolute plagiarist, just see here, in the influences section:

I personally never denied that he takes bits from other films, everybody knows he does, but people still love his films. His films entertain, in an interview he said that in his opinion the ''main aspect of a film is for it to entertain'', and his films just do that.
edit:I'm not saying I agree with that quote^

Karl Hungus wrote:

We're not going to see Inglorious Bastards any time soon. Currently, he's doing a film called Grindhouse with Robert Rodriguez. So it'll be some time after that he'll be doing Inglorious bastards. Although, he was supposed to film it straight after Kill Bill, so I wouldn't hold out much hope for it.

Well 'Inglorious Bastards' is under the status of 'Announced' apparently he started writing the script 5 years ago, so yes I agree with you-it's going to take a while. There's also a rumour on imdb, that IB will be made into a TV show, due to the lenghth of the script, so...*shrug*

As for fans of Q.T. it's not a bad idea to explore his influences^

missingtime

I read in and interview with him that ever since doing the CSI episode he would like to do something in TV.

One movie that ye forgot to mention was Four Rooms.Even though it wasn't his movie he got writing credits along with Robert Rodriguez. And From Dusk Till Dawn. Two movies which I enjoyed a lot

And sorry for the off topic question but I've seen the name buzzing around the threads before - Whos Lady Snowblood?

Karl Hungus

missingtime wrote:

And sorry for the off topic question but I've seen the name buzzing around the threads before - Whos Lady Snowblood?

It's the film that 'Inspired' Kill Bill. He even used the film's themesong in his aforementioned film.

PrettyPoison

missingtime wrote:

One movie that ye forgot to mention was Four Rooms.Even though it wasn't his movie he got writing credits along with Robert Rodriguez. And From Dusk Till Dawn. Two movies which I enjoyed a lot

-Aah yeah Four Rooms, I have to say Rodriguez's room was better, it was funnier, and just more entertaining...
-From Dusk Till dawn, I love that film. It's so...fake, but good fake...:p

Thing about Tarantino, I do love his films, but he's not a director I'd take seriously. He's entertaining, amusing, funny whatever, but definitely not a serious director. He's in it for the fun...
A director that I WOULD take seriously, would be, for example, F.F.Copolla or Kubrick... but not Q.T....

Karl Hungus

PrettyPoison wrote:

Thing about Tarantino, I do love his films, but he's not a director I'd take seriously. He's entertaining, amusing, funny whatever, but definitely not a serious director. He's in it for the fun...
A director that I WOULD take seriously, would be, for example, F.F.Copolla or Kubrick... but not Q.T....

Arguably, I would take a director who's in it for the love of making films far more seriously.

PrettyPoison

That's an interesting statement...
I see what you mean, I shall now go and contemplate over what you said...
Gosh I feel like a dufus now....:D

PrettyPoison

PrettyPoison wrote:

I personally never denied that he takes bits from other films, everybody knows he does, but people still love his films. His films entertain, in an interview he said that in his opinion the ''main aspect of a film is for it to entertain'', and his films just do that.
edit:I'm not saying I agree with that quote^

Oliver Stone sums up tarrantino by saying "he makes movies, i make films"

And as far as "overconfident interviews" go he makes many. The last one for kill bill he was claiming it would be one of the greatest movies in history......yeah right - how can one of the greatest movies in history be made from a collage of other films. even taking music from other films.

anyway enough rant

humanji

PrettyPoison wrote:

P.S. To the starter of this thread,I think the author you're thinking of is Elmore Leonard

I'm not sure about that. I've also been told E.M. Nathanson, but I really have no idea

Dragan

Deleted User wrote:

PrettyPoison wrote:

Oliver Stone sums up tarrantino by saying "he makes movies, i make films"

Yeah , but i'd rather watch a good movie than a bad film

nadir

Ok !!!
I'll back myself up a little.

This has all been done a million times before.

I dislike him for lots of reasons. First of all I find his films lack any depth, I dont find the characters involving or interesting, That goes for Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. In particular when it comes to pasting Japanese stuff into his movies, it's all so plastic. It's like I'll take Chiaki Kuriyama in seifuku and throw her in here, a few Katanas there, and that will work. In my opinion it doesn't, its just aweful. She's like a good actor as are most of the crew from Battle Royale (especially Kou Shibasaki ). Why use her in a dull role like this, his whole asian content thing, is crap, the way he tries to fuse Chinese and Japanese content together. Its like Japanese Weapons and fashoin in a 70's HK kung-fu style with choreography done by Woo-ping Yuen, anime done by someone else, same theme tune/scene as lady snowblade What a ****ing mess. In the end compared to 'Iron Monkey' / Any Kurasawa movie / most early Jet Film, it's just pants.

Furthermore I'll back up the original poster with his point that this is all a gimmick, Tarantino wants the world to remember him as the greatest director, he acts a dick in interviews for noteriety and pastes his name all over the place (eg. Hero) for popularity. He wants to recreate all the styles of cinema that have gone before him, the sleek italian mafia style, the asian/kung-fu style just so people will think of him when they see a similar movie, they will be like, 'oh wow that was a real tarantino style flick.

I also find his movies contain violence for the sake of violence, but without any humour or intelligence and completely void of emotion. His films have NO emotional content. I find it completely boring, it brings nothing new to cinema.
Especially when you compare it with other current directors, Kitano, Miike, Isao Yukisada, Shunji Iwai, Hirokazu Koreeda etc. His stuff just seems totally bland, and thats only one country I pick from!

As for ripping off movies, yeah city on fire etc. ok the original was nothing spectacular, I still dont think you should 'borrow' from other films in that way.
As for Pulp Fiction influnces check here

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Interesting that you single out 'Jackie Brown', his smallest success, as decent. How very indie of you.

yeah, thanks for noticing. , seriously though I thought it was kinda ok, do you not agree it's his best movie?

look in short, when I watch a film, I would like to to be Interesting/Emotional/Original/Intellectual/Humorous/Adventurous
I don't any get any of the above from Tarantino.

lodgepole

nadir wrote:

In the end compared to 'Iron Monkey' / Any Kurasawa movie / most early Jet Film, it's just pants.

It wasn't supposed to be like any one of them, it was supposed to have little bits off all of them (although Kurosawa wasn't too present in Kill Bill). As an overall package, I find Kill Bill to be as enjoyable as Iron Monkey, better than some of Kurosawa's work, considerably worse than much of it* and better than virtually all of Jet Li's early (pre American) work...

* I wouldn't generally compare the two... For the reasons Oliver Stone was quote saying... Film vs Movie...

Furthermore I'll back up the original poster with his point that this is all a gimmick, Tarantino wants the world to remember him as the greatest director, he acts a dick in interviews for noteriety and pastes his name all over the place (eg. Hero) for popularity.

Hero was bought by Miramax and would have been released Stateside in an edited version had Tarantino not done that. Which is fine for those of us who had heard of the film and bought it from China before that point, not so fine for the general public. I don't mind his name being on it if it gets it shown in multiplexes in the West...

He wants to recreate all the styles of cinema that have gone before him, the sleek italian mafia style, the asian/kung-fu style just so people will think of him when they see a similar movie, they will be like, 'oh wow that was a real tarantino style flick.

It's up to the viewer to make that decision... If a person watches an old gangster movie, or asian thriller and thinks that Tarantino came first then so be it. I don't believe that he is interntionally hijacking these genres and claiming them as his own. Any interview you see with the man contains refereces to a dozen movies that he thinks people should check out...

I also find his movies contain violence for the sake of violence, but without any humour or intelligence and completely void of emotion.

It's a question of taste I suppose but I find Pulp Fiction a very funny film. It's a black comedy anyway... His films don't pack the emotional bang that other film makers strive for, but then he's making entertainment.

Especially when you compare it with other current directors, Kitano, Miike, Isao Yukisada, Shunji Iwai, Hirokazu Koreeda etc. His stuff just seems totally bland, and thats only one country I pick from!

Kitano is alright and Miike is horrifically over-rated (though i'm sure he will make a truly great film at some point). Hirokazu Koreeda is excellent, though I don't see why his great films (or indeed anybody elses) are effecting your enjoyment of Tarantino's films.



My favourite Tarantino movie is definitely still Jackie Brown, with Reservoir Dogs close behind. Why is it "indie" to prefer Jackie Brown?

Karl Hungus

Lodgepole wrote:

I find Kill Bill to be as enjoyable as Iron Monkey, better than some of Kurosawa's work, considerably worse than much of it

I had to take a double-take at that part. Not that I'm trying to argue with you or anything, but what exactly of Kurosawa's did you find not as good as Kill Bill?

lodgepole

Karl Hungus wrote:

I had to take a double-take at that part. Not that I'm trying to argue with you or anything, but what exactly of Kurosawa's did you find not as good as Kill Bill?

Well personally speaking Throne of Blood and Red Beard. I should really have continued the "enjoyment" aspect of what I was saying since they're both better made films than Kill Bill and are, for their faults, certainly deeper than Kill Bill. I just don't like them. I'm also not a fan of Sanjuro, particularly when put next to Yojimbo.

It's important to remember that i'm a massive fan of Kill Bill, and love it despite its many faults. I don't really like comparing it to Kurosawa because his films and Tarantino's are cut from different cloth.

Karl Hungus

Lodgepole wrote:

Well personally speaking Throne of Blood and Red Beard. I should really have continued the "enjoyment" aspect of what I was saying since they're both better made films than Kill Bill and are, for their faults, certainly deeper than Kill Bill. I just don't like them. I'm also not a fan of Sanjuro, particularly when put next to Yojimbo.

It's important to remember that i'm a massive fan of Kill Bill, and love it despite its many faults. I don't really like comparing it to Kurosawa because his films and Tarantino's are cut from different cloth.

I'm shocked. Both Throne Of Blood and Sanjuro are two of my favourite Kurosawa films, and Red Beard I thought was an absolute masterpiece aswell. I know what you mean about not wanting to compare them though. Some people think I'm strange for prefering Sanjuro to Yojimbo, but I think it's because by the time I saw Yojimbo, I'd already seen the story told so many times that Sanjuro seemed so much more fresh to my eyes. No denying Yojimbo is a masterpeice though.

lodgepole

Karl Hungus wrote:

Both Throne Of Blood and Sanjuro are two of my favourite Kurosawa films, and Red Beard I thought was an absolute masterpiece aswell.

I was at a distinct disadvantage with Throne of Blood in that I absolute hate the play. I quite enjoyed Sanjuro but it didn't really go beyond that point. I think it's just personal preference with Red Beard, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm a little boring in that Rashomon is my favourite Kurosawa with Yojimbo and Hidden Fortress close behind.

With Kurosawa there's always something to appreciate even when you don't like the film, which is what makes him an artist.

Tarantino is not an artist in the same sense. I'm not sure what your stance on electronic music is or on sampling, but that's kind of how I saw Kill Bill. I thought it was masterfully woven together and made for as entertaining a kung fu/gore/western/revenge et al film as i've seen in a very long time. In many cases I got to see things that i'm used to seeing shot on dirty 16mm film produced in glorious 35mm and in other cases I saw things i'd never seen before and have since looked into. Kill Bill wasn't traditional film making but I think it delivered on its intention, which was to pack all of those little sub genres that have been relegated to cult section in video stores all over the world and make people watch them.

I was a little disapointed to hear that he was doing Grind House, since it's the same kind of deal... Had he not done Kill Bill i'd be delighted, but I don't particularly want to see another novelty film from him. I'd prefer something with the depth of story that Jackie Brown or Reservoir Dogs had. Something with a bit more meat, so to speak.

shuushh

not going to get into the tarantino argument as its been done before suffice to say lady snowblood is a brilliant film as is kill bill

i would love to see eddie murphy in a taratino film he has the knack of getting great performances out of strange actors

Running Bing

Karl Hungus wrote:

Arguably, I would take a director who's in it for the love of making films far more seriously.

Are you serious? Quentin Tarantino adores films. Hes one of the most enthusiastic directors making movies and anyone whos worked with him tells of his passion for films and film making.

Secondly people need to look up a definition of plagiarism in the dictionary. He doesnt rip off lady s in KB he references it as with all the other movies he referenced in Kb. Plagiarism would be denying hes referenced them but hes incredibly open about any of the films hes used. Jackie Brown is based on the novel rum punch and pulp fiction is completely original. Only Res Dogs could be viewed as a possible case of plagiarism but I think we can give him that one(how many other directors have took things from other films?)


has anybody heard anything about his other project "grindhouse". Apparently its a joint project with rob rodriquez where each one makes a movie and there put together to make one movie complete with grindhouse style trailers in between the two sections. Sounds very interesting.

Jimi-Spandex

nadir wrote:

I also find his movies contain violence for the sake of violence, but without any humour or intelligence and completely void of emotion. His films have NO emotional content. I find it completely boring, it brings nothing new to cinema.
Especially when you compare it with other current directors, Kitano, Miike, Isao Yukisada, Shunji Iwai, Hirokazu Koreeda etc. His stuff just seems totally bland, and thats only one country I pick from!

Now, maybe my opinion isn't educated enough, I have only seen five of Miike's films (DoA trilogy, Audition and Ichi the Killer) or maybe there is something I didn't pick up on, but I found some of the violence in those movies to be approaching masturbatory levels. Granted a lot of it is funny in a very dark manner, but he goes past that threshold alot of the time imo.

User45701

****e, its been bumped back to 2009... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361748/

I had forgetten about this movie since this thread and just remembered it there, i assumed it had been released and i missed it or else it had been released and was a total flop but i mean comeon. 2009. Stress of that, i mean if it was April or May i might not mind but now the wait seems so much longer...

Galvasean

Question: In the case of films like Kill Bill which is apparently a remake of Lady Bloodflake (was taht the name?), does Tarintino pay royalties in the usual manner or try get away with it?
Note; I havent seen the movies he is supposed to have plagiarized so can't really comment whether he did or not.

Running Bing

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty ridiculous statement considering the quality of Pulp Fiction.

I am by no means a Tarantino fan, I prefer some originality. I dont like his coked up overconfident interviews neither.
Tarrantino has some talent in that he's got some style, but as far as ideas go, he might as well be a pop musician. i would love to see him attempt to make an original film and then perhaps he could be judged on his own qualities. too many more rehashes and he will be like a footballer with a bad knee injury

Thank you for finally giving an honest well backed up anti-tarantino opinion.


I personally love Tarantino, he is one of my favourite film makers and has a massive impact on me growing up and is hugely influential in giving me the love I have of all types of films today.


What I hate is people just blatantly saying vague things like "he's crap" or "he's a rip-off merchant".


The plot and characters in Tarantinos movies are rarely original....personally I dont think that is enough to dislike a film and I am sure the majority of people with this attitude I could pick out loads of films they like that are closely based on another idea or story.


If people dont like QT thats fine...no director is universally liked, but I just wish sometimes people could be more intelligent about it and give reasons like El Rifle because when people make blatant statement like "Hes ****" it just makes me think they are doing it to be different tbh.